Reducing Stress in Health Care: Evidence From Using an Integration Design Model Rob Keefer, PhD Lisa Douglas, PhD
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Reducing Stress in Health Care: Evidence From Using an Integration Design ModelRob Keefer, PhDLisa Douglas, PhD
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Big Idea
Technostress is real and can be reduced using an integration design model.
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Technostress is Real
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Technostress in Healthcare
1 Widera, E., Chang, A., & Chen, H. (2010). Presenteeism: A public health hazard. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1244-1247. 2 Smith, M., Carayon, P., Sanders, K., Lim, S., & Legrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23(1), 17-27. 3 Al-Abri, R. (2007). Managing change in healthcare. Oman Medical Journal, 22(3), 9-10. 4 Friedberg, M., et al. (2013). Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy. RAND Corporation Research Report. ISBN 978-0-8330-8220-6
Person-Technology Fit Model*
3 potential sources of stress designed into a system: Intrusive (presenteeism1 and anonymity2)
Dynamic (pace of change3)
Usability (usefulness, complexity, and reliability4)
*Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Russell, P. (2011).
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Integration Design Model
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Classic ModelTypical questions in user research:
Traditional Interaction Questions Additional Synergistic Questions
What is the user trying to accomplish? Why is this important?
Are the user goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. collaboration)
What does the user need to know to accomplish the goal? Why?
What is the user’s reasoning process to solve this problem?
How does the user feel while performing a task?
What near-real time information does the user want to know?
What is the machine trying to accomplish? Why is this important?
Are the machine goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. tracking)
What does the machine need to know to accomplish the goal? Why?
What is the algorithm, or machine’s reasoning process, to solve this problem?
What information does the machine need to monitor and radiate appropriately?
Does the system promote the desired emotions of the user?
+
+
+
+
+
+
Research Users
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Integration Design Model
Researchers Users
Developers
A Synergistic Approach
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Integration Design ModelLet’s add a set of questions to our research:
Traditional Interaction Questions Additional Synergistic Questions
What is the user trying to accomplish? Why is this important?
Are the user goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. collaboration)
What does the user need to know to accomplish the goal? Why?
What is the user’s reasoning process to solve this problem?
How does the user feel while performing a task?
What near-real time information does the user want to know?
What is the machine trying to accomplish? Why is this important?
Are the machine goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. tracking)
What does the machine need to know to accomplish the goal? Why?
What is the algorithm, or machine’s reasoning process, to solve this problem?
What information does the machine need to monitor and radiate appropriately?
Does the system promote the desired emotions of the user?
+
+
+
+
+
+
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Results
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Methodology
57 Participants: Registered Nurse: 55 Physician: 1 Hospital Tech: 1
Evaluation Method: No. Research Projects: 9 SUS: 5-point Likert Scale Subjective: 1-10 continuum
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Existing Systems
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Existing Systems
NOTE: Interact with up to 10 disparate systems to complete tasks
44.5
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Initial Releases
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Initial Releases
NOTE: Focus on consolidating systems, increasing efficiency, reducing cognitive workload
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Following Releases
NOTE: Support for Multitasking Summarization of Information
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Continued Success
NOTE: Further Experimentation Continued Learning
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Final Releases
NOTE: Last Known Sighting Medication Review Support
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Results
NOTE: Unpaired t-test: t = 6.0504, p < 0.001 MD=18.90 (in Conf Interval)
M1 M2
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Conclusion
Technostress is real and can be reduced using an integration design model.
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Further Research
A recent study*suggests that perception of usability (SUS) and mental workload may be independent, not fully overlapping, constructs. Further research will introduce mental workload scores (NASA Task Load Index).
*Longo, L. (2017). Subjective Usability, Mental Workload Assessments and Their Impact on Objective Human Performance. In: Bernhaupt R., Dalvi G., Joshi A., K. Balkrishan D., O'Neill J., Winckler M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2017. INTERACT 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10514. Springer. 202 - 223
We plan to gather more data to support and refine the integration design model seeking to incorporate trust and shared values.
pomiet.com @rbkeefer
Usability Testing ResultsStudy Focus N SUS Score 1-10 Rating
Current System 10 44.5 -
Dashboard 6 69 -
Homepage 6 72 -
Multitasking 6 88 8.6
Progress Notes 5 89 9.4
Header Info 6 84 9.2
Last Known Sight 6 91 8.4
Assessments 7 - 9.3
Med. Review 6 95 9.4
Alerts 4 - 10
Mean 5.7 84 91.9
Related Documents
